Trade deals are one subject (one of the very few left) which do not break down on party line. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are split over the issue, so it's not a repeat of the usual partisan battle lines. But it is a clear defeat for Obama, who lobbied hard to very little effect.

Over the past few months, protests have erupted in the halls of the U.S. Capital, and in the streets outside, to thwart the passing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)--a boon to corporate interests, the protesters argue, and an anathema to U.S workers.

The jobs report Friday set off cheering: a quarter million positions added in December; unemployment declining to 5.6 percent. This good news arrived amid a booming stock market and a GDP report showing the strongest growth in 11 years. It's all so very jolly, except for one looming factor: wages.

Unless Republicans repudiate Reaganite supply side (i.e., trickle down) economics -- which stands at the very heart of contemporary, Tea Party conservatism and is the only thing unifying the increasingly disparate social conservative, libertarian, and Chamber of Commerce wings -- they own this debacle.

Unless we want an America that is a tale of two cities, a tale of two nations, a "Downton Abby America on steroids," then let's hope that the refreshing message of progressives such as Bill de Basio seize the moment, and the public votes a stop and frisk of Reaganomics.

Rand is the guy who accused the president of being too tough on BP during the largest oil spill in American history. His feelings about corporations resemble how pre-Reformation Catholics felt about the Pope -- absolute infallibility.

With Pope Francis and President Obama -- a pair of the world's most powerful voices -- warning against the dangers of social exclusion and excessive greed, we can expect to hear expressions of remorse as well as rage from all the usual right-wing suspects. But what we shouldn't expect is honesty.

The only way for our nation to regain its economic and democratic vitality in the years to come is to acknowledge the inherent poverty of America's new prosperity -- a prosperity for only the very few that is inherently anti-democratic and insidious. We can do much better.

Republicans, the gig is up. We are on to you. The truth: if Republicans say it, then the opposite is true. So stop repeating the lies, or just stop talking. Let us examine some well-known sound-bites that those on the right love to spout and repeat.

Putting aside the debates between the effectiveness supply-side economics and whether an increase in sales tax would disproportionately negatively impact the poor, state sales tax only plans cannot make up for the lost revenue under current laws. The reason?

"Why can't we do this? Why can't we evade taxes on income simply because we invest it?" she asked. "We can't because we are individuals," I responded. "So are the partners at Bain Capital," she protested. "You don't understand economics," I explained.

Do Americans want a government of the people by the people for the people? Or do Americans want a government of the corporations by the corporations for the corporations, one dedicated to the proposition that the rich are better than everyone else?

Although tax increases on high-income individuals might reduce their saving, if the revenue generated is devoted to deficit reduction, the resulting increase in public saving is likely to more than offset any reduction in private saving.

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., wrote in 1904, "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." But the wealthiest Americans, who haven't raked in as much of America's income and wealth since the 1920s, are today paying a lower tax rate than they have in over 30 years.

It is clear that the increase in capital gains plays a large role in driving inequality trends, and, if we taxed such gains as regular income, that would help to reduce inequality. So, can one argue on the one hand that tax policy is inherently limited as a tool against rising inequality, and on the other, that we should employ tax policy to push back on inequality? I could invoke Walt Whitman -- "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes" -- and leave it at that. But better yet, let me explain. In reality, the evidence shows that increased inequality is a pretax story.

Like Wall Street over the past decade, we politically (and perhaps socially) have gone about creating intellectual monocultures, which may do one or two things surpassingly well, but which may prove exceedingly vulnerable.